The tweet is self explanatory. In the context in which the question was asked, it is the Lead Designers opinion that "forced non-consensual" PvP is bad game design.
To try to spin this to mean anything else is being disingenious.
exactly i don't see how people on this forum are taking it any other way. I mean if the original tweeter said "how will PVP be handled" and the developer said "we will avoid bad design decisions", then i could understand all the interpretations. however the original tweeter brought up "non-consent PVP" specifically which brought out the "bad design decisions".
I am not surprised. We all posses different levels of reading, writing and comprehension skills. Far be it from me to attempt to convince others into interpreting writings into anything other than what they want them to read. All I can say is this ... the "forced non consensual PvP" folk would do well to temper their expectations. This game will not be "forced non consensual" PvP. It's not a matter of being wrong or right.
Yes and the head of the company (smed) was talking about how great permadeath is and how much he loves ganking in eve. So it's probably best not to read into these things too much.
well heck, I like ffa pvp and I still wouldn't design an ffa pvp game if I wanted to capitalize on the greatest return I could get.
Sometimes owning the 2nd 3rd and 4th most popular products on the market can be better then owning the #1 product on the market. Together they equal more money =-)
Yes and the head of the company (smed) was talking about how great permadeath is and how much he loves ganking in eve. So it's probably best not to read into these things too much.
well heck, I like ffa pvp and I still wouldn't design an ffa pvp game if I wanted to capitalize on the greatest return I could get.
Sometimes owning the 2nd 3rd and 4th most popular products on the market can be better then owning the #1 product on the market. Together they equal more money =-)
I would agree.
However, we are talking about an EQ game with a large established fan base and a "revolutionary" AAA game which they started over several times.
I highly doubt they are thinking "let's take our flagship IP and make a #3 game."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Yes and the head of the company (smed) was talking about how great permadeath is and how much he loves ganking in eve. So it's probably best not to read into these things too much.
well heck, I like ffa pvp and I still wouldn't design an ffa pvp game if I wanted to capitalize on the greatest return I could get.
Sometimes owning the 2nd 3rd and 4th most popular products on the market can be better then owning the #1 product on the market. Together they equal more money =-)
I would agree.
However, we are talking about an EQ game with a large established fan base and a "revolutionary" AAA game which they started over several times.
I highly doubt they are thinking "let's take our flagship IP and make a #30 game."
Yes and the head of the company (smed) was talking about how great permadeath is and how much he loves ganking in eve. So it's probably best not to read into these things too much.
well heck, I like ffa pvp and I still wouldn't design an ffa pvp game if I wanted to capitalize on the greatest return I could get.
Sometimes owning the 2nd 3rd and 4th most popular products on the market can be better then owning the #1 product on the market. Together they equal more money =-)
I would agree.
However, we are talking about an EQ game with a large established fan base and a "revolutionary" AAA game which they started over several times.
I highly doubt they are thinking "let's take our flagship IP and make a #30 game."
Corrected that for you.
There is 29 other Everquest games out? I missed a few. (((eyeroll)))
Yes and the head of the company (smed) was talking about how great permadeath is and how much he loves ganking in eve. So it's probably best not to read into these things too much.
well heck, I like ffa pvp and I still wouldn't design an ffa pvp game if I wanted to capitalize on the greatest return I could get.
Sometimes owning the 2nd 3rd and 4th most popular products on the market can be better then owning the #1 product on the market. Together they equal more money =-)
I would agree.
However, we are talking about an EQ game with a large established fan base and a "revolutionary" AAA game which they started over several times.
I highly doubt they are thinking "let's take our flagship IP and make a #30 game."
Corrected that for you.
There is 29 other Everquest games out? I missed a few. (((eyeroll)))
Its an obvious exaggeration. I added a "0" to his "3." The implication is that the game wont even register on the radar. Not sure why I have to explain the obvious, but I suppose its necessary sometimes.
It's still up in the air, they might have a wonderful new system that is "good design" for pvp. I highly doubt it though, seems like a huge waste of effort on SoE for what should simply be a PvE game first.
P.S - I'm a hardcore pvper , but it's simply amazing how much more agreeable I am with the PvE crowd than some of the typical pro-pvp crowd here. ( Just an observation )
Wow ... not much debate coming from the "forced non-consensual" PvP crowd after this tweet. It is very nice to see we've arrived at a consensus. I just hope the hard core non consensual folk are all ok.
Hey hardcore PvPer, there is no need to be disillusioned! There will still be PvP. It just wont be forced, and that is a good thing.
Could mean that they see open world non consensual PvP as a good design decision, or it could mean they see it as a bad design decision.
Could very well mean they will have multiple servers that incorporate each method of PvP to cater to whatever people may prefer.
EQ1 had FFA, race oriented, and I believe guild oriented? (Can't remember, didn't play all of them) As well as a server where you rolled back to level 1 with all starter equipment upon death. No reason they won't open up multiple ruleset servers again, if they see it as a good design decision.
It could be implying "open world PVP is bad design" or he could mean "our version of open world PVP is good design, you'll like it more than you can imagine".
lol i don't know how you got the later, I think PVPers need to be nervous with that tweet to be honest. When someone brings up "non-consent PVP" and one of the developers comments that they want to avoid BAD design decisions.
.....
... right after saying he "cannot comment directly on this concern".
If "we avoid bad design decisions" implied "non-consensual PVP is absolutely not in EQN" then he would in fact be "commenting directly on this concern".
THAT is what should be clear.
The ONLY thing that can be safely concluded from his quote is that any open world PVP in EQN is going to be done in a fashion they consider good game design.
FWIW I'm a PVEer. But I don't rule out the possibility that I could enjoy a game where open-world, in-faction ganking was legal but was de factonon-existent due to prohibitive consequences. And I find the idea of crafting castles, devices and ships for siege defense and naval warfare really compelling, regardless of whether I actually PVPed during the battles (though I probably would find myself sucked into it on occasion.)
As always the Pure PVE'rs and the Consensual PVPers have no problem with the FFA PVPers playing their way i have YET to see anyone from those groups say "FFA PVP should not be an option at all ever". most if not all are saying the opposite "if you want FFA PVP, cool lets open up a server just for you to play on".
however thats not good enough for the hardcore PVPers, apparently everyone has to be involved in the FFA PVP or else its not fun for them i guess.
I have heard the excuses of "oh the games suck if the PVP is just tacked on" so that should mean that those pure PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers fun should be ruined because of bad FFA PVP design?
It could be implying "open world PVP is bad design" or he could mean "our version of open world PVP is good design, you'll like it more than you can imagine".
lol i don't know how you got the later, I think PVPers need to be nervous with that tweet to be honest. When someone brings up "non-consent PVP" and one of the developers comments that they want to avoid BAD design decisions.
.....
... right after saying he "cannot comment directly on this concern".
If "we avoid bad design decisions" implied "non-consensual PVP is absolutely not in EQN" then he would in fact be "commenting directly on this concern".
basically he is saying exactly that, he can't come out and directly say that non-consensual PVP is not in EQN, but they will not make bad design decision as in Non-consensual PVP is a bad design decision.
he could have said many different things "while i cannot comment directly on this concern, we think the players will be very happy with our design decisions" but for him to come and say "bad design decisions" when a questions comes up on non-consensual PVP? thats pretty clear.
i think many are grasping at straws and trying to twist this. i honestly think its clear as day.
Well, the reason many (not all) PVPers want everyone together playing open-world is so they have plenty of easy targets.
In situations like early UO, the "hard core PVPers" tended not to seek each other out to fight. Instead they went for the most gain at least risk, e.g. the crafters, RPers, explorers - basically people less able to defend themselves.
So anytime you hear "give us open world full loot PVP!" you can translate that as "give us plenty of easy kills!"
In games like Conan, on the open PVP servers, it was common to see level 60's and higher roaming the starting areas mowing down defenseless newcomers. Any game company in their right mind that wants to attract customers will avoid that sort of "PVP."
Well, the reason many (not all) PVPers want everyone together playing open-world is so they have plenty of easy targets.
In situations like early UO, the "hard core PVPers" tended not to seek each other out to fight. Instead they went for the most gain at least risk, e.g. the crafters, RPers, explorers - basically people less able to defend themselves.
So anytime you hear "give us open world full loot PVP!" you can translate that as "give us plenty of easy kills!"
In games like Conan, on the open PVP servers, it was common to see level 60's and higher roaming the starting areas mowing down defenseless newcomers. Any game company in their right mind that wants to attract customers will avoid that sort of "PVP."
EXACTLY!
Seriously. All this forced PVP crap needs to go.
It´s just a pointless discussion. It´s bad for business, so not gonna happen. Exactly what the Lead Designer was getting at.
There will either be PVP and PVE servers.
So People that want to PVP go play on PVP servers
and People that want to PVE go play on PVE servers.
Or there will be PVE servers only, with separate (Open) PVP maps.
I rather just see seperate PVP and PVE servers, so that those who are really into PVP can have full Open PVP.
... right after saying he "cannot comment directly on this concern".
If "we avoid bad design decisions" implied "non-consensual PVP is absolutely not in EQN" then he would in fact be "commenting directly on this concern".
THAT is what should be clear.
no that would be an indirect comment. Not mentioning the "subject" of discussion but creating a response that, in context, addressed the subject.
So discussing little Timmy's propensity to burn things in a direct fashion while he is in the room: "We need to confront little Timmy's tendency to light the carpet on fire"
Discussing it in an indirect way with little Timmy in the room: "At times it's important to discuss the tendency for some young and disturbed children to use fire as an outlet for their frustrations. Especially if it is someone in the family".
Little Timmy is never acknowledged but in context we know who we are talking about.
The little pyro.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Haha ,well i have to say that guy kept his tongue in cheek but still managed to answer it very well.Personally i was never in doubt of it being a PVE dominant game,it makes sense in every way you look at it.
Although i have had some complaints about SOE,they used to be my most favorite game designer,by a huge margin,i have since switched to Square but still i know SOE has some good people.My point is that although they piss me off with some stuff,i have never considered them to be dumb ,they know how to make money even with limited subscribers.
I will tell you that when the SOE big shots started firing everyone over the billions in lost revenue,Smedley kept his job for a reason.Smedley might be in charge of the gaming division but he can still easily be fired,so they think he does a good job at what he does.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
First off there were too many PvP and PvE threads fighting over what Everquest Next is going to be, so instead of answering each one, I made my own thread.
So I grew slighty concerned as well as some of my guild-mates about the idea of the EQ IP being changed from a PvE Centric game to a Non Consensual PVP game.
I opted to Ask a number of the Developers.
The Lead Game Designer answered, and here it is:
So there you have it folks a Bad design decision. Now this most likely means that PvP will continue to be all the rage on the PvP Servers(as it has ALWAYS been) and PvE'ers will continue to be safe from torment while enjoying their gaming experience.
No, don't let him get away with this. He could have just said yes/no this feature exists. He played word games that suggest but can be played either way. Don't fall for this. Demand concrete and specific answers.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Originally posted by TheJoda Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.
It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.
I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.
What is his intention why not being clear with a simple yes/no answer. Occams razor...
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
First off there were too many PvP and PvE threads fighting over what Everquest Next is going to be, so instead of answering each one, I made my own thread.
So I grew slighty concerned as well as some of my guild-mates about the idea of the EQ IP being changed from a PvE Centric game to a Non Consensual PVP game.
I opted to Ask a number of the Developers.
The Lead Game Designer answered, and here it is:
So there you have it folks a Bad design decision. Now this most likely means that PvP will continue to be all the rage on the PvP Servers(as it has ALWAYS been) and PvE'ers will continue to be safe from torment while enjoying their gaming experience.
No, don't let him get away with this. He could have just said yes/no this feature exists. He played word games that suggest but can be played either way. Don't fall for this. Demand concrete and specific answers.
Agreed, but I'm sure they don't want to give out any concrete info until the reveal at SoE Live, so it's understandable.
I don't know why there are so many threads on this topic. Go play EQ1 and EQ2 and you will see what the pvp will be like, or at least a general decision.
Originally posted by Riposte.This I don't know why there are so many threads on this topic. Go play EQ1 and EQ2 and you will see what the pvp will be like, or at least a general decision.
I played them both and I dont agree. I think there will be some type of PvP added to EQN thats deeper then just a tomb of discord and PvP servers. With modern MMOs where they are PvP is really a great time killer and if you dont have it, people play games that do. To really be a next gen MMO I think EQN needs PvP with some depth.
Originally posted by Riposte.This I don't know why there are so many threads on this topic. Go play EQ1 and EQ2 and you will see what the pvp will be like, or at least a general decision.
I played them both and I dont agree. I think there will be some type of PvP added to EQN thats deeper then just a tomb of discord and PvP servers. With modern MMOs where they are PvP is really a great time killer and if you dont have it, people play games that do. To really be a next gen MMO I think EQN needs PvP with some depth.
I really do believe that there are going to be lessons taken from EVE.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Riposte.This I don't know why there are so many threads on this topic. Go play EQ1 and EQ2 and you will see what the pvp will be like, or at least a general decision.
I played them both and I dont agree. I think there will be some type of PvP added to EQN thats deeper then just a tomb of discord and PvP servers. With modern MMOs where they are PvP is really a great time killer and if you dont have it, people play games that do. To really be a next gen MMO I think EQN needs PvP with some depth.
I really do believe that there are going to be lessons taken from EVE.
Comments
I am not surprised. We all posses different levels of reading, writing and comprehension skills. Far be it from me to attempt to convince others into interpreting writings into anything other than what they want them to read. All I can say is this ... the "forced non consensual PvP" folk would do well to temper their expectations. This game will not be "forced non consensual" PvP. It's not a matter of being wrong or right.
It is just a matter of fact.
You may want to look into that twitter quote before you go running around thinking it means what you think it does.
Sometimes owning the 2nd 3rd and 4th most popular products on the market can be better then owning the #1 product on the market. Together they equal more money =-)
I would agree.
However, we are talking about an EQ game with a large established fan base and a "revolutionary" AAA game which they started over several times.
I highly doubt they are thinking "let's take our flagship IP and make a #3 game."
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Corrected that for you.
There is 29 other Everquest games out? I missed a few. (((eyeroll)))
Its an obvious exaggeration. I added a "0" to his "3." The implication is that the game wont even register on the radar. Not sure why I have to explain the obvious, but I suppose its necessary sometimes.
It's still up in the air, they might have a wonderful new system that is "good design" for pvp. I highly doubt it though, seems like a huge waste of effort on SoE for what should simply be a PvE game first.
P.S - I'm a hardcore pvper , but it's simply amazing how much more agreeable I am with the PvE crowd than some of the typical pro-pvp crowd here. ( Just an observation )
Wow ... not much debate coming from the "forced non-consensual" PvP crowd after this tweet. It is very nice to see we've arrived at a consensus. I just hope the hard core non consensual folk are all ok.
Hey hardcore PvPer, there is no need to be disillusioned! There will still be PvP. It just wont be forced, and that is a good thing.
/taps them on the head
That could be taken a lot of different ways...
Could mean that they see open world non consensual PvP as a good design decision, or it could mean they see it as a bad design decision.
Could very well mean they will have multiple servers that incorporate each method of PvP to cater to whatever people may prefer.
EQ1 had FFA, race oriented, and I believe guild oriented? (Can't remember, didn't play all of them) As well as a server where you rolled back to level 1 with all starter equipment upon death. No reason they won't open up multiple ruleset servers again, if they see it as a good design decision.
... right after saying he "cannot comment directly on this concern".
If "we avoid bad design decisions" implied "non-consensual PVP is absolutely not in EQN" then he would in fact be "commenting directly on this concern".
THAT is what should be clear.
The ONLY thing that can be safely concluded from his quote is that any open world PVP in EQN is going to be done in a fashion they consider good game design.
FWIW I'm a PVEer. But I don't rule out the possibility that I could enjoy a game where open-world, in-faction ganking was legal but was de facto non-existent due to prohibitive consequences. And I find the idea of crafting castles, devices and ships for siege defense and naval warfare really compelling, regardless of whether I actually PVPed during the battles (though I probably would find myself sucked into it on occasion.)
As always the Pure PVE'rs and the Consensual PVPers have no problem with the FFA PVPers playing their way i have YET to see anyone from those groups say "FFA PVP should not be an option at all ever". most if not all are saying the opposite "if you want FFA PVP, cool lets open up a server just for you to play on".
however thats not good enough for the hardcore PVPers, apparently everyone has to be involved in the FFA PVP or else its not fun for them i guess.
I have heard the excuses of "oh the games suck if the PVP is just tacked on" so that should mean that those pure PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers fun should be ruined because of bad FFA PVP design?
basically he is saying exactly that, he can't come out and directly say that non-consensual PVP is not in EQN, but they will not make bad design decision as in Non-consensual PVP is a bad design decision.
he could have said many different things "while i cannot comment directly on this concern, we think the players will be very happy with our design decisions" but for him to come and say "bad design decisions" when a questions comes up on non-consensual PVP? thats pretty clear.
i think many are grasping at straws and trying to twist this. i honestly think its clear as day.
Well, the reason many (not all) PVPers want everyone together playing open-world is so they have plenty of easy targets.
In situations like early UO, the "hard core PVPers" tended not to seek each other out to fight. Instead they went for the most gain at least risk, e.g. the crafters, RPers, explorers - basically people less able to defend themselves.
So anytime you hear "give us open world full loot PVP!" you can translate that as "give us plenty of easy kills!"
In games like Conan, on the open PVP servers, it was common to see level 60's and higher roaming the starting areas mowing down defenseless newcomers. Any game company in their right mind that wants to attract customers will avoid that sort of "PVP."
EXACTLY!
Seriously. All this forced PVP crap needs to go.
It´s just a pointless discussion. It´s bad for business, so not gonna happen. Exactly what the Lead Designer was getting at.
There will either be PVP and PVE servers.
So People that want to PVP go play on PVP servers
and People that want to PVE go play on PVE servers.
Or there will be PVE servers only, with separate (Open) PVP maps.
I rather just see seperate PVP and PVE servers, so that those who are really into PVP can have full Open PVP.
no that would be an indirect comment. Not mentioning the "subject" of discussion but creating a response that, in context, addressed the subject.
So discussing little Timmy's propensity to burn things in a direct fashion while he is in the room: "We need to confront little Timmy's tendency to light the carpet on fire"
Discussing it in an indirect way with little Timmy in the room: "At times it's important to discuss the tendency for some young and disturbed children to use fire as an outlet for their frustrations. Especially if it is someone in the family".
Little Timmy is never acknowledged but in context we know who we are talking about.
The little pyro.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Haha ,well i have to say that guy kept his tongue in cheek but still managed to answer it very well.Personally i was never in doubt of it being a PVE dominant game,it makes sense in every way you look at it.
Although i have had some complaints about SOE,they used to be my most favorite game designer,by a huge margin,i have since switched to Square but still i know SOE has some good people.My point is that although they piss me off with some stuff,i have never considered them to be dumb ,they know how to make money even with limited subscribers.
I will tell you that when the SOE big shots started firing everyone over the billions in lost revenue,Smedley kept his job for a reason.Smedley might be in charge of the gaming division but he can still easily be fired,so they think he does a good job at what he does.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
No, don't let him get away with this. He could have just said yes/no this feature exists. He played word games that suggest but can be played either way. Don't fall for this. Demand concrete and specific answers.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
What is his intention why not being clear with a simple yes/no answer. Occams razor...
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Agreed, but I'm sure they don't want to give out any concrete info until the reveal at SoE Live, so it's understandable.
Killing dragons is my shit
I played them both and I dont agree. I think there will be some type of PvP added to EQN thats deeper then just a tomb of discord and PvP servers. With modern MMOs where they are PvP is really a great time killer and if you dont have it, people play games that do. To really be a next gen MMO I think EQN needs PvP with some depth.
I really do believe that there are going to be lessons taken from EVE.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Challenge EVE and AA? Could be. I would try it.